9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (6) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1957. Both these appeals involve a common point and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For asst. yr. 1972-73, the return of wealth was field on 12th September, 1972 and for asst. yr. 1973-74 it was filed on 14th September 1973. Thus there was a delay of two months for the asst. yr. 1973-74. For asst. yr. 1972-73 general extension for filing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Against these orders, the assessee has come up in appeal before us. 3. At the time of hearing the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted a paper books containing 8 pages. He referred us to page 3 of the paper book relating to the order of the ITO in the case of firm for asst. yr. 1972-73. In that order it is mentioned that the return of income was filed by the firm on 12th September, 1972 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the assessee had not done anything so as to prove his bona fide or reasonable cause. The return of firm got delayed was no excuse for non-filing of the wealth-tax return by the partner. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the parties of both the sides and have also gone through the material placed before us. We are inclined to agree with the ld. counsel for the assessee th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... got the necessary particulars from the assessee if he wanted to disbelieve the submissions made by the assessee. From the materials placed before us it is clear that the returns in the case of firm were filed late. Obviously, therefore, the accounts of the firm must have been delayed. Therefore, we feel that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the returns in time. Besides, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
